thing with the worst stock market anywhere over the last five years, zika, and pollution and the corruption. but it's turning around with the olympics. small cap brazil. >> john, thumb's up or down. >> the g diving pool and you will invest in brazil? >> bye, guys. hillary clinton short circuited again to use a now famous term, when she accidentally told and said she wanted to raise taxes on the middle class. >> donald trump wants to give trillions in tax breaks to people like himself. he'd pay a lower rate than millions of middle-class families. >> the plans are out and the gloves are off. hello, everyone. i'm charles payne in for neil cavuto. hillary clinton and donald trump rolling out their tax plans but do eat door anything about our record debt? to ben stein, charlie, julie and larry glazer. dagen mcdowell doing her usual

great job and still out working on the book, "war and peace" but in the meantime larry this administration taking in a record amount in taxes and our debt continues to mount. whose plan can fix this? >> sure. well unfortunately, neither plan really deals with the elephant in the room that soaring national debt. and in order to do that, both plans will actually increase the debt. we have to deal with the entitlement issue in this country. social security, we've got medicare, medicaid, that are 50% of the budget. so outside of that we have one really key difference that is corporate income tax. hail larry talks about getting companies to pay their share but donald's plan will do it. lowering the corporate income tax gets companies to bring $2 billion sitting overseas back to this country to create jobs and get this economy really moving. >> ben stein, you like that idea, that less is more? >>. >> no, i don't like it at all. i've been saying that for some time. it's pretty simple if you raise

taxes you will bring in more money. this is the formula if you low in taxes you will bring in money has been proved to be faulty over and over again. i'm afraid that even though i'm not a huge fan of mrs. clinton to put it mildly, her tax plan is much less better where the deficit is concerned. we just have to raise taxes. horrible. i don't like paying taxes but we have to raise taxes on the very, very rich. they can afford it. they won't miss a thing. >> charlie, it's interesting to hear ben, because i know he knows the economic history, but the supply side argument if you go back to reagan's term in office 3.5% annual average gdp, last six years, 4.5%, that's good growth. >> i think -- listen i respect ben a lot, love him, he's my brother but nothing about economic. >> my brother. >> has been proven. it has not been proven that supply side doesn't work. it really hasn't proven it does work.

>> which plan is best, though? >> if you can look at history, donald trump has a better plan. because history shows that over time, when you do keep -- when you lower regulations, when you keep -- when you lower taxes, businesses and i believe in economic growth, brings much more taxes than any government can. economic growth increases. now the problem with donald's plan he does nothing to contain entitlements and, you know, that's the elephant in the room with that. but if you're going to net this thing, you know, this isn't even close. her plan is horrible. it complicates everything. his plan is a lot simpler and by the way, i trust donald trump with tax plan with a paul ryan led congress, any day of the week. >> julie, both can candidates will spend a lot of money and debt will go up. the point is, which candidate's -- will create prosperity in light of the higher debt? >> no surprise i agree with ben. supply side and ben i'm sorry to

do this, voodo economics. >> even though it worked in practice. >> didn't work in practice under ronald reagan, the deficit went up and we know that. you have -- it did. but so you have two plans that i think -- >> highest percentage of gdp. >> both plans are interesting. if you're donald trump and a corporation, or you're a really affluent human being donald trump's plan it graze. ben stein will do great. middle class parent or somebody trying to get into the middle class -- >> i will not protest too much, ben. >> in the middle class or trying to get into the middle class, the breaks that she's given, the incentives she's giving in her tax plan -- >> larry -- >> under donald trump's plan, everybody gets a tax break, so -- >> that's right. >> the notion that only a certain portion of the population we've heard that before, it's a canard, you can argue maybe you're jealous someone is getting more of the money they earned back, which is just the same as a percentage thing, right? >> that's right. look, charles, it's not just about taxes too, it's about the regulatory burden.

both candidates are talking to the middle class. we know from history the middle class that winds up paying the bills. the middle class got caught holding the bag. time and time again. when we look at the regulatory burden unfair on small businesses in the country and that's one issue that is a key distinction that trump talks about. he will lessen the burden. >> the deficit as a percent of gdp during the reagan years. one reason it shrank because gdp grew. we had economic growth, something we have not had in this environment right now which is hurting this country tremendously. >> it grew from a very low base. we were coming out of a terribly severe recession and the fact is, with all due respect to my brother, mr. gasgasparino, by t way, your comments about mrs. clinton's voice are just great, they're the best thing on tv right now, but that's not the economics. the receipts fell the first year and then mr. reagan, whom we

love, raised taxes every year for seven years and receipts rose. >> after a massive tax cut he raised some taxes. did not raise income taxes, raised other taxes. >> because a lot of loopholes -- >> when you are supposed to do when you reform the tax code which is why money came back into the coffers. >> it is. >> but by simplifying the tax code something donald trump will do you will in effect raise taxes while putting more money in people's pockets. that's what will happen. >> we're talking ronald reagan had two tax brackets, donald trump has three or four if you count zero as a bracket. hillary has -- i lost track and it's special penalties, a 10% penalty here. >> oh, god. >> she goes after the so-called rich and wealthy. >> no question. i mean look if you're rich -- >> how does that create growth? that's the problem people have. how do you create growth and prosperity? that's redistribution but how do you create organic growth. >> isn't this the argument in the 90s when her husband raised

taxes not just on the rich but everybody and everybody -- but then everybody said this is going to absolutely stymie our economy. >> it did. >> it didn't stymie our economy. >> first two years of president clinton. >> he was -- >> by the way he was not coming out of recession. the economy was growing during george bush's last term. last year. what happened, let's get the sxhik history right. president clinton the reason you had a republican congress two years into the clinton presidency, is because the economy sucked. and because he raised taxes. and then he cut taxes and one of the biggest booms ever. >> all right. >> i'm not saying i -- >> raised taxes. >> yeah. i mean we're getting locked in mu niche shah here. >> the 1990s, capital gains tax cuts and -- >> julie it is fair to say. >> regulation -- >> he raised them. >> it is fair to say that hillary clinton is running more on barack obama's economic philosophy than her husband's economic philosophies and the question is, will it ever generate any kind of real prosperity because wages are lower and everything else is down. >> she's addressing whether this

is poll driven or economics driven i will leave it up to people to decide. i think i know what it is. she's trying to appeal to the notion that the rich have gotten very rich over the last two, three decades while the poor have gotten poorer and the middle class has shrunk and she's saying essentially whether you agree or not that you need to tax the rich at a higher rate and share the prosperity. >> president obama -- >> i want to ask you about this, i mean, ultimately people watching at home who aren't, you know, making seven figures a year, whose plan ultimately does improve their personal lives? >> >> yeah, certainly look tax the rich sounds great. who doesn't want to tax the rich. when you look at the plan the reality there aren't enough rich people to tax to pay for all the bills. the middle class gets pushed up. it depends where you live. rich in new york is very different than rich in iowa. and when we look at the middle class, upper middle class business owners, they're getting stuck dry in this economy and a continuation of the current policy hasn't been helping the middle class. that wealth gap has never been greater charles, so we need to try something different.

>> yeah. >> to help restore the middle class this country. continuing the policies isn't the answer. >> that's a serious irony, income inequality has gotten worse not better. everybody wants to come in. want to talk about this explosive new gop report that accuses our military's central command of a terror threat cover-up, is downplaying isis putting our way of life in danger? we will report, you will decide. >> today on forbes on fox, heard about trump and clinton's tax plan. how about a plan to scrap all income taxes for one national sales tax. we're going to tell you the presidential candidate pushing it and if it would work. you got a kid or know a kid going off to college. it may take them a lot more time to get that degree than they

a bombshell report on the war on terror blowing up in d.c. a gop congressional task force accusing some officials of manipulating intelligence reports to make the fight

against isis appear more successful than it is. ben, is this what taxpayers really deserve? >> no. it isn't what taxpayers really deserve. taxpayers rarely get what they deserve. as a matter of fact, human beings rarely get what they deserve. unfortunately, it has been a commonplace of military history in the united states and in all other countries for the politicians to get the military to lie for them, exam rate for them. this has been true since the revolutionary war very true during the civil war, very, very true during world war i and world war ii and true in vietnam. so unfortunately, while i'm sure it is true that the politicians may exaggerate and centcom, this is standard operating procedure. it's unfortunate but not unusual. >> julie, we should also point out that there was a democrat version of this report, just as critical? >> yeah. by the way, ben, that's a thomas hobbs kind of state of affairs, the nature that you're talking about about human beings.

>> it's depressing, it is. >> thanks to you. i will say that yeah -- >> well i don't think i caused human nature. >> you point out life is brutal and nasty and short. thanks for ruining our saturdays there. ben is right, centcom is actually doing this, it's inexcusable. whoever is doing it should be held responsible. no indication it's coming from the white house or the secretary of defense. but nevertheless, centcom -- if this is happening, awful. >> if we start to think and relax, think we're doing better against isis than we are, think about this, this week we thwarted a suicide bomber in canada. i mean, the threat, we don't want to let down our level of threat and don't want them -- because they are impacting our way of life. no doubt about it. >> you worried when it's filtered through politics. as ben made a brilliant point before, weapons of mass destruction, i'm sure collin powell when he heard the words weapons of mass destruction, went, i'm paraphrasing went to president bush at the time and

said let's be really sure, are we sure, he cautioned against it still, so -- but the policy guys still wanted to invade iraq. the one thing i will say is this, is this, you know, are the policy guys doing this as a matter of course where they -- how they usually do it or is the obama administration like the nixon administration and/or johnson where they're filtering every bad thing about isis through a purely, purely political framework. is this worse than it was -- is this comparable to nixon, johnson? i don't know. if it is it's bad. >> larry, i have to believe it is in a sense that, you know, this is a battle that our administration under estimated, the jv team, that has tentacles all over the world and we've seen a slate of attacks this year against the west that have been devastating. >> ever since vietnam, the american people have had a very skeptical view of military intelligence, particularly when it looks like it's altered for

political gain. and that's what we're seeing here. look, it doesn't take a genius to turn around and see everywhere you look, there's a globally inspired isis event. whether it's paris, whether it's nice, san bernardino. it's all around us. it's not going so well we just want transparency and truth. american lives are at stake here, we want to know people are safe including those in the armed forces. >> ben, let me ask you, historically this has been done before but right now the stakes are extraordinarily high and, you know, maybe the taxpayers always get the shaft but we should at this point somehow demand more or better? >> well -- >> can demand -- we can demand any thing we want. we're not going to get it. the military is always going to respond to what the politicians tell them to do. we have a military in this country that is used to civilian control and used to civilians pushing them around. it's very unfortunate. the last military person who tried to stand up to it was, i believe, named mcarthur and you see what happened to him.

so the military just doesn't stand up to the politicians. and as a result, we get skewed intelligence data. my god, the intelligence data coming out of the vietnam war was insane. it was completely made up, alice in wonderland nonsense. >> what's interesting about what ben just said, ultimately the commander in chief is the commander in chief. the military really can't constitutionally can't -- >> ultimately shouldn't the commander in chief give it to the american public straight. >> they should be getting it from centcom straight. >> the other point is, president bush got skooured on the weapons of mass destruction issue when they were not there. i think the media should be skewering president obama on his approach to isis calling them the jv team. >> also particularly -- >> he needs to own -- >> particularly in an election year. >> you're right. he needs to own this and "the new york times" should make him own it, not just us, the nosh times. >> good luck.

good luck with "the new york times." >> again nothing is fair, i get it. >> let's leave it there, guys. thanks a lot. by the way, the global warming debate, that also just got a little hotter. this as democrats push to take so-called climate change deniers to court. the

are americans telling global warming alarmists to cool it? 59% of voters disagree with a dozen state attorney generals vowing to prosecute companies they say are misleading the public on climate change.

something the democratic platform actually supports. charlie says the majority of americans have it right. charlie? >> i think if the democrats really want to do this efficiently -- these are mostly democratic a.g.s who want to basically prosecute thought. these are -- they should get re-education camps. copy the vietnam, cambodian, russian models of re-education camps and just change people's minds all at once modesto of doing stupid piecemeal things because it's not efficient enough to prosecute thought that way. they should just go whole hog -- i'm -- i bet you if hillary clinton's watching, she's going to take this up. >> she's probably already thought of it. >> she knows we're on. >> also, this was a survey done over phone and on line. a combination of both. it seems like another form of a shakedown that's wildly unpopular. >> let's be clear. states pass laws, right, dealing with climate -- climate change.

you may like those laws, you may not like those laws, it's a belief things. when you have corporations, exxon, i don't know who it is, doctoring evidence -- >> that's so stupid. >> wait a second. doctoring evidence -- >> they're not doctoring -- >> let me finish my thought. or otherwise breaking no state laws -- >> there's no evidence. this is not conclusive. >> okay. right. >> it's economics. there's nothing -- >> it's not a matter of -- >> it's an idea that somehow an attorney general can tell a company what to think seems farfetched to me. >> it's more than farfetched. it's unconstitutional, a violation of the first amendment. it's gone way beyond suing corporations over their disclosure documents. there are prominent people in america on the democratic side saying that climb change skeptics should be put in prison. >> that's different. >> that's actually happening in america. >> not the same. >> that is real orwellian

thought. that is probably the most frightening things that's come out of the democratic party ever. >> larry, i see it as a pattern of being a part of a shakedown. you demonize something and start shaking them down -- >> this isn't about climate change. this is about government overreach and steindividuals stepping up and taking responsibility. governments are always going to do things we don't like. it's for individuals and the media to call them on it, for the people to rise up. it's not the government's job to enforce everything. if the government enforces everything that doesn't satisfy their beliefs, where do you draw the line? look, are we going to enforce religious, political beliefs? this is what happened with the irs scandal. that's the problem. >> i like the fact that my re-education camp things wasn't that farfechd. >> no, it wasn't. >> farfetched -- somebody out there saying you should be prosecuted because you crazily don't believe in manmade global climate change, that's inside.

>> bill nye. bill nye, the science guy. >> that's not what they're doing -- >> that's a healthy debate. >> listen -- >> larry -- >> what they're doing is there are laws that you may not agree with, and those companies are being prosecuted for not enforcing those states' laws -- >> we've got to leave it there. mike, thank you. julie and charlie, three or four workers say they're living paycheck to paycheck. not for long. the stocks that help pay all your bills and then some.

look at you. you're at the top of your game. at work or at play, you're unstoppable. nothing can throw you off track. oh hey, she's cute. nice going man. things are going great for you. you've earned a night out. good drinks, good friends. yeah, we can go ahead and call this a good night. wait, is that your car?

uh oh. not smart. yeah, i saw that coming. say goodbye to her. ouch! that will hurt your bank account. you're looking at around ten grand in fines, legal fees, and increased insurance rates. i hope you like eating frozen dinners. alone. let's try this again. smart move. because buzzed driving is drunk driving.

ston living paycheck to paycheck. thoughts on paying bills. larry? >> general electric, an olympic sponsor, close to a 3% dividend yield and infrastructure that benefits under clinton and donald trump. up 15% in a year, and moving to my hometown of boston.

>> ben stein. >> you're not going to beat the average cost in an average period of time g. with the spiders. >> thank you very much. the cost of freedom continues with dave asmin on fox. more very serious e-mail questions for hillary clinton, and not just the new ones tied to the clinton foundation. wikileaks' julian assange, he's the guy revealing those leaked dnc emails a couple weeks ago, says more are come and that clinton -- suggesting that trump and putin are to blame -- is to distract the public from her own dealings with russia when she was secretary of state. . >> hillary clinton has done well strategically to draw connection between trump and russia because she has so many connections of her own. now, my analysis of trump and that is that there is no substant